Ban announcements

[GIMH]

Even if you class what sledger did as trolling, then doing it over one night is different from constantly doing it for 9 months (and that's just taking his latest account into account).

BTW, saying Darrel Hair is the greatest umpire ever is a perfectly legitimate opinion to hold. Whether sledger's intentions on that one were legitimate is another thing

And I ask again, do not post messages from my wall. Yes, they are public, but it is still impolite.

 

[Cevno]

VMs are supposed to be private to the members concerned. Respect teh privacy.

Fair enough.

Would be more careful from next time,but how can they be private when they can be permalinked and also are open to everyone is beyond me.

It's not as if i am a mod with access to PM'S and have posted a quote from there.

 

[Shri]

Fair enough.

Would be more careful from next time,but how can they be private when they can be permalinked and also are open to everyone is beyond me.

It's not as if i am a mod with access to PM'S and have posted a quote from there.

Thats because PMs are not available in cw.

 

[Furball]

Even if you class what sledger did as trolling, then doing it over one night is different from constantly doing it for 9 months (and that's just taking his latest account into account).

BTW, saying Darrel Hair is the greatest umpire ever is a perfectly legitimate opinion to hold. Whether sledger's intentions on that one were legitimate is another thing

And I ask again, do not post messages from my wall. Yes, they are public, but it is still impolite.

There's also disregarding moderator requests and continuing whatever it is you've been doing.

When mods close spam threads in Site Discussion, it's not license to go and create another batch of spam threads. Do that after a warning and that's pretty much asking for a ban.

 

[GIMH]

Thanks for that intelligent insight into the world of moderation, phew thank god you were here or I don't know I'd have coped

 

[James]

VMs are supposed to be private to the members concerned. Respect teh privacy.

They're not "private", and can be linked. If they were private, they wouldn't appear viewable to all which they are.

What you say and do through your visitor messages area is as open as any post in a thread is. Which is why in the past, I've warned a few members to watch what they do through it.

 

[_Ed_]

Bruce Campbell was banned because he kept creating multiple accounts. He did this before he was banned the first time and continued to do so after he was banned. As far as I know he was never actually banned for the content of his posts.

So why was he banned the first time?

 

[Shri]

They're not "private", and can be linked. If they were private, they wouldn't appear viewable to all which they are.

What you say and do through your visitor messages area is as open as any post in a thread is. Which is why in the past, I've warned a few members to watch what they do through it.

Its not black and white. VMs usually contain personal conversations that are not suitable for a thread in sub-forums. Just because it is publicly viewable to all doesn't mean that someone who is not involved in the conversation should bring it out to the open. Its just basic decency imo.

 

[Prince EWS]

So why was he banned the first time?

For creating duplicate accounts. He did it before he was even banned, to bump his own threads etc.

 

[_Ed_]

Oh right. Got you.

 

[GIMH]

Its not black and white. VMs usually contain personal conversations that are not suitable for a thread in sub-forums. Just because it is publicly viewable to all doesn't mean that someone who is not involved in the conversation should bring it out to the open. Its just basic decency imo.

Yeah agree - it again comes down to that line between forum rules and what people should actually do.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Its not black and white. VMs usually contain personal conversations that are not suitable for a thread in sub-forums. Just because it is publicly viewable to all doesn't mean that someone who is not involved in the conversation should bring it out to the open. Its just basic decency imo.

Nah, you're wide off the mark. It's about as private as the wall on facebook.

 

[James]

Its not black and white. VMs usually contain personal conversations that are not suitable for a thread in sub-forums. Just because it is publicly viewable to all doesn't mean that someone who is not involved in the conversation should bring it out to the open. Its just basic decency imo.

Yeah agree - it again comes down to that line between forum rules and what people should actually do.

Will agree to disagree.

All I'll add is that people should be careful what they say and do via the VM system because it can and I'm sure does get read by more people than what you think it does and I personally don't see a problem with someone linking one within a thread to backup an argument.

 

[Pothas]

Can understand the bans although do not necessarily agree with them, the reason given is fairly hilarious.

Problem I think was the closing of the Millstones and Ham threads; these were quite amusing and did no harm whatsoever.

I can of course understand why when you get a whole page of such threads that you would close and delete them.

 

[Prince EWS]

Can understand the bans although do not necessarily agree with them, the reason given is fairly hilarious.

Problem I think was the closing of the Millstones and Ham threads; these were quite amusing and did no harm whatsoever.

I can of course understand why when you get a whole page of such threads that you would close and delete them.

That's why the Ham thread went. We had Glam, Jam and Spam versions of that thread too.

 

[GIMH]

Wouldn't have got a whole page if the others hadn't just been disposed of of course.

Burgey's point about the threads being no more pointless than the one about what pratters dog eats or z's take from the Moyles show is valid, and it is annoying to members when mods decide certain things are 'pointless', 'pathetic' or 'rubbish'. It is not pleasant to have someone else decide that something you were reading and thought was amusing is actually pointless.

Again, not condoning the reaction per se, but that is the sort of thing that will happen when things are moderated in that way.

 

[GIMH]

That's why the Ham thread went. We had Glam, Jam and Spam versions of that thread too.

Ham thread had about 20 replies before it went though, (did not see the others though was aware that they had happened)

Why did the first one go?

 

[Prince EWS]

Ham thread had about 20 replies before it went though, (did not see the others though was aware that they had happened)

Why did the first one go?

First one went because people kept creating more of them. I didn't touch the Spam thread until the Jam, Ham and Glam threads appeared.

I think I actually missed the Ham thread when I deleted the other ones, or it was created after I'd deleted them, so James deleted it the next day - that's why it got so many replies. Different rules apply for Site Discussion anyway; it's not a subforum we cop any crap in. And no, just moving the thread isn't the answer - if you don't want a pisstake thread, don't create it in SD, simple.

 

[GIMH]

You informed me that it was you who deleted it.

 

[Prince EWS]

You informed me that it was you who deleted it.

Yeah I thought I had, but I actually missed one that wasn't deleted until the next day. It ended up with more replies as a result.